Mathematical note

[mamadeb]

Neither Democratic candidate can get enough delegates to win. We're headed for a brokered election.

I'm sorry that my candidate has the nerve and stubborness not to lay down and die.

Comments

[batdina.livejournal.com]

ah, that's what superdelegates are for, which is why your candidate hasn't left the game yet.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

That's actually counting superdelegates (and there are a number pledged to Obama) and I wish they didn't exist. I also believe that Florida and Michigan should have *been* counted, but once the decision was made to NOT count them, that should NOT be changed.

[batdina.livejournal.com]

seriously? I'm not so sure about that, actually. At any rate, they should both stay in for the convention and then let the delegates hammer it out there. That's what the convention is FOR after all. It's only been in the past decade or so that the candidate's been chosen before the delegates have even voted.

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

You seem to be unusual among Clinton supporters in that. Which disappoints me -- not about you, I hasten to add, but about them, and her, and the evident idea that it would be better for the DNC not to follow through on a promise if it would be inconvenient to one's candidate that they do so. Sigh. (I'm with you, in case you couldn't tell.)

[sdelmonte]

I honestly think that, under the current system, as long as there is a chance that a candidate can win, he or she should stay in.

I just hate the current system, given that all but two choices were gone before the vast majority of us could vote.

[batdina.livejournal.com]

Hell, I voted on SuperTuesday in February and even *then* my candidate was already gone. Something's definitely wonky here.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Mine, too.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

It's better than other years, when we'd have been down to one a long time ago. Two strong candidates - not a bad thing.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

If I hear one more time she should drop out--*grits teeth*

But I am zen. And God, am I hopeful.

[batdina.livejournal.com]

I don't think she should drop out either. I just wish the other candidates had stuck around too. Then it would be a race instead of a bloodbath.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Why do you think I made the post in the first place? I have NO problems with Obama - just with many of his followers. He's ahead, but the game isn't over yet.

(And really - I want a president who is just that stubborn.)

[sethg]

Not gonna happen.

Dean (chairman of the DNC) has said that he wants the undecided superdelegates to make up their minds ASAP after the last primary. To get the nomination on the first ballot, all Obama has to do is at least break even getting delegates in the remaining primaries and win over at least one third of the superdelegates who haven't declared a preference yet, or vice versa.

The superdelegates can theoretically throw the nomination to the candidate who has fewer pledged delegates, fewer overall votes, and less money raised than her opponent, but I think most of them would want a damn good reason for doing so, and I don't think the Clinton campaign is providing them with one.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

But until that happens, both are in the same position.

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

I assume that's irony? I'm glad she's not laying down and dying. Especially if that makes it any more possible for there to be a joint ticket.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

I've been seeing a lot of posts that she should just concede NOW. Or even, "Why won't she just go away?" There's one person on my flist I keep thinking of defriending because he's been extremely *nasty* - he's taking it personally that Clinton dares to still stay in the race.

And it would be a total waste for Clinton to be VP. (And I wouldn't want Obama to be *her* VP for the same reason. They should be in the other's cabinet.)

The person I think Obama should choose (assuming he's the nominee?) Bill Richardson. Be a good choice for Clinton, too.

[cara-chapel.livejournal.com]

At this point I'm starting to think a joint ticket is the only possible hope of uniting the party enough to beat McCain.

Ironically, the continued race seems both to make it more likely Hillary will prove she's viable enough to be on a joint ticket and to make it harder to unite the party.

This post (http://zillah975.livejournal.com/251993.html) pretty much sums it up, for me. And unless I'm vastly mistaken, just change the names and it could probably sum up the feelings of a lot of Obama supporters, too, if Hillary gets the nomination.

[blueraccoon.livejournal.com]

(disclaimer: I am a strong Obama supporter, have been since the beginning)

My concern is that the longer this goes on, the more fractured the Democratic Party gets, and the stronger chance we have of McCain winning in November. Obviously, I would prefer my candidate to get the nomination. I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I won't like it, but I'll do it, because either of them is better than McCain.

I just don't know as the many swing voters and die-hard fans--on either side--will see it that way. And that's what worries me.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

*points at previous comment* Yes, that. Precisely.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Yes. I've seen that. I've seen that from both camps - that they won't vote for the other candidate. I regard that as extremely stupid.

Although, if the Obama camp is as smug as I'm afraid it will be, it won't be easy for me to pull that lever, either.

[sethg]

Your favorite candidate sucks.

[rachel-wilder.livejournal.com]

I didn't want to jump in the middle of a discussion, so this is related to the thread about how campaigns were managed vs. how the administration might be run and for me that was a major tipping point.

Here in Iowa we see a lot more of the operation up close because most of the campaigns spend 8 or more months here. After a disappointing experience with the Dean campaign four years ago I shopped around for a candidate based on his/her views and the organization that was supporting them.

I have to admit that it was the Obama organization that put me in his camp as much as his views (although I support the things he stands for). There has been a thoughtfulness and pragmatic approach that I believe will be part of a successful administration. I'm not saying that Hillary' presidency would have been the same as Bill's, but there are a lot of the same people involved and what I saw with her campaign here was the kitchen sink philosophy that often times seemed to make the first Clinton administration have a hard time finding their voice and agenda.

At this point I am hopeful for a resolution that stops the in-fighting. None of that will be good for us this fall.

And thank you for continuing to share your views. In the end I believe that most of us really want the same things--a change for our country and our future.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Whereas I mostly see the Internet voice of Obama's campaign, and not what happens up close. It's the followers that scare me, not the candidate - there is a worshipfulness in his most vocal supporters that is really frightening.

I do hope so much that who ever loses does so in a way that will unite the party. But the negativity on both sides...I don't know.

Neither of them can Win...

[yinkawills.livejournal.com]

Hi there :)
I'm a black woman from Britain, and I think Obama can't become president, for the same reason Hilary can't.
The first black or female president- i.e someone breaking the mould due to race or gender- would have to be a conservative. That would enable voters to stomach the shock.

In the UK, the first woman Prime Minister was someone so right wing, her gender was the only radical thing about her.
If she'd been in the US she would have been to the right of Reagan.

I've noticed this elsewhere,in major Western democracies. Its too much to expect voters to go for both a giant departure in their normal patterns of thinking (and voting) and accept some major political upheavals as well. If either Obama or Clinton were conservative Republicans, they'd stand a better chance.Not that I'm saying either of them are leftish. As I understand it, John Edwards was more left (relatively speaking) than either of them.
Just that they arent conservative enough.

Its no co-incidence that the first black Secretaries of State have been in a Republican administration, for all the vaunted talk of Clinton as 'the first black President' (gag me with a spoon :C)

If post Gulf War 1, Colin Powell had run as a Republican, he could have been elected.Pre-Katrina,-and before it had become apparent what a debacle Gulf War 2 was-I remember reading that a group of Republicans were trying to persuade Dr Rice to run..
What is sad to me, is that the divide and rule game splitting the poorest white communities against black people, to the detriment of both, that has worked ever since the founding of the US, appears to still work...
Just my humble opinion, from the outside looking in..

Re: Neither of them can Win...

[randominity.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I as a black American woman, fully agree. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate in November, but I'm under no illusions that he or she will win.

Re: Neither of them can Win...

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

In any other year, any other election, I'd agree with you completely.

However, the Republicans are in very bad odor. This is about the only situation where either a liberal woman or a liberal black man could possibly elected to that office for the first time.